tv FCC Chair Unveils Net Neutrality Rewrite Calls for Light Touch Approach CSPAN April 29, 2017 5:33pm-6:20pm EDT
first time that the mob thenated trials violated due process clause. that is the first time that the supreme court struck down a state criminal court conviction. that was a huge moment. inputting fair criminal trials on the liberal agenda. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> this week, fcc chair ajit pai unveiled plans to undo previous rules that mandated a free and open internet was speaking at the museum in washington, d.c. those rules were introduced by tom wheeler and went into effect under the obama administration. this is just under one hour. >> good afternoon everyone. president of freedom works and i want to welcome everyone here. a lot of people are talking
president trump's first 100 days. and i would suggest that yes, the supreme court is a big deal but the things that chairman rightai is working on now, potentially could have the longest impact of anything coming out of this administration. that is definitely debatable. i have been at freedom works for 12 years. when i started, this is one of the first issues we worked on. last year, i was very nervous that we were going in the wrong direction. president obama had passed new regulations on the internet that i thought would permanently saw -- stop innovation. there are 15 billion devices connected to the internet today. 15 billion. in 2020, that number will go up to 50. obviously, we are going to be getting to a whole new level of change.
we can either regulate the change or let the market develop. we are encouraged to hear that chairman ajit pai, the announcements he will be making today, we are looking at opening of the internet for development in a way that will increase and does away with having antistate regulation. elections have consequences. as i said, at the end of the first 100 days, this potential he is going to be the greatest impact on our autonomy in a long time. with that, i would like to introduce a member of the small business and entrepreneurship council. [ applause ] very much.u it is a pleasure to cohost today's event with freedom works. our members are very excited.
they are watching the live stream right now on the freedom works platform, on facebook, and like all of you, are very excited to hear from chairman rileyai and commissioner about the future of internet regulation. it will not come as any surprise to all of you gathered in this room or our members who are watching the event right now that when small business owners think about their experiences with regulation, or the regulatory process, their thoughts are not that kind, to say the least. regulations, are very costly. archaic. outdated. complex. conflicting. and the regulatory process itself, most times, does not consider the impact on small firms and entrepreneurs and ignores their concerns on final rules -- when final rules are
finally released. that being said, we are very excited about the new direction this administration has taken on front andtory regulation in general across all agencies. and are very excited about what the fcc has done so far under the chairmanship of ajit pai. we were very delighted, for example, that when the chairman -- when he first put on his chairman's hat, that his first action was one that protected small businesses. that was the order that extended protection for small firms for an additional five years. there, it has been a series of actions, common sense actions that have supported -- that have .een supported by my members
reforms they have long advocated for all agencies. those reforms include more transparency, inclusiveness, using actual economic data in analysis to guide rulemaking. and actually listening on a proactive basis to the concerns of small business owners and entrepreneurs to understand what the impact is going to be on their firms as consumers, in technology and telecommunication services. as an organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship, we are very concerned about the state of a small business. many continue to struggle. a have reached plateaus in terms of growth. we are very concerned about entrepreneurship. it remains very weak in the u.s. a cap analysis report that was published by my chief economist
who is here with us today found ll inbecause of this lu startup activity in the last 10 years, that our economy is missing 3.7 million firms. that is a lot of businesses. job creation, innovation, and the overall growth of our economy. thankfully, things are changing. we will hear about a tax reform plan today that will create, help create the ecosystem that we need to encourage small business growth and entrepreneurship. ip day -- today is world and we are celebrating that. ip is a critical step in the ecosystem in terms of start of activity. and we need a regulatory system that is also very friendly. and that is why what chairman ajit pai and commissioner o'reilly are doing on the regulatory front really matters. investment is key to innovation
and bringing our small businesses and people who want start small businesses affordable, high-quality broadband so they can use the internet to compete in the global marketplace in the location of their choice. we are very excited to hear the remarks about the regulation that is going to dictate the future of entrepreneurship in america. and the thank ajit pai commissioner. and we were -- and we look forward to working with them in the years ahead. we will be hearing from a few stakeholders and friends of our organization. katy maccallum, you are up next. of is executive director digital liberties. >> thank you everyone for being here.
this is a red letter day. i want to say first of all, thanks to ajit pai and commissioner o'reilly for everything you will be undertaking for a free market and the internet going forward. i want to be clear that no one is against net neutrality. we are against a government takeover by regulatory fiat without congressional input. that is a major problem. forward, i just want to say that if you are for competition, you are against title to and moving forward, we are looking ahead to an open and transparent process for comments. something revolutionary to be able to comment in this way ahead of time which we were not able to do before. we are very excited about the road ahead of us. thanks. [ applause ] >> thank you.
institutean consumer is glad to be here today with chairman ajit pai and commissioner o'reilly to talk that the future of the internet. the internet as we know it florist under like touch regulatory models -- under light touch regulatory models despite the evidence. led commission voted to put the internet under the yoke of a 1934 law mentor for rotary file telephone services. since these regulations have taken effect, broadband investment has declined and negativelylowed, impacting consumers, especially those in underserved areas. -- underserved areas. we look forward to writing is wrong so consumers can benefit from increased investment and innovation that will fuel andncements in telemedicine
other innovations and technologies. with that, do we have a representative from the national range? i will turn it over to you. [ applause ] >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is betsy huber and i am the president of the national grange. i am honored to stand alongside chairman ajit pai, freedom works and the small business and entrepreneurship council to talk about the importance of conductivity to our rural communities. nationalears, the grange has worked to ensure that all communities are able to the latestm advancements in communications technologies and gain access to them. today, that is why we are committed to ensuring an open internet to connect all entered the nurse -- all entrepreneurs from the silicon valley to the silicate prairie. we look forward to working with the chairman on his efforts to spur inclusive innovation that
connects all american citizens including those in our rural and small-town communities. now, i would like to introduce lopez fromz -- mario the hispanic leadership fund. >> thank you, betsy. welcome everyone. great to see everyone here. we are thrilled you can be here for today's announcement. i am president of the hispanic leadership fund, a public policy advocacy organization dedicated to promoting liberty and prosperity for all americans. i am any of our members, tech enthusiast. i'm excited about the innovations and emerging technologies coming from the tech sector. on a personal level, as well as because of the transformative power of this sector has in terms of creating jobs and affording opportunities for all communities. the has panic leadership fund leaves that one of the primary reasons that the technology
sector has florist is because -- das florist -- has flourishe because of the light touch of the regulatory actions. we believe it can work again to allow technological -- technological solutions to improve the lives of working families across the country. the latino community is heavy with small business growth. latinos start small businesses at a rate three times that of the general population. traditionally first adopters of this technology, relying on it to improve their lives and seek education. we look forward to hearing what the chairman has this a about the future of the internet policy. work with him and his staff to make sure that all communities are served well. thank you. and now, it is my pleasure to
hand it off to the representative from the lincoln network. my name is garrett johnson. i am a cofounder of linkedin network. were those of you not familiar with lincoln network, since 2013, we have focused on between thedges tech community and government leaders and washington, d.c. and across the country. today, i am not here speaking as a telecom policy expert or a lobbyist or a lawyer. i am none of the above. in 2011, i moved to silicon valley after the company i started was accepted into why, nader. we had to register as a common werier with the fcc because were improving communication between businesses and consumers. we had to complete five reports, useless reports, per year that required over 50 hours of work according to an omb estimate.
i found it wast a acquired a year and have a and my cofounders and i have not been operational for the past six months, my co-founder on monday received a call from south carolina, regulators there, asking for $20 in fees that were owed from 2016. i am just happy they do not have my number. while jumping through the regulatory hoops, we built a product that businesses wanted and paid for. we created jobs. we met payroll. every day, entrepreneurs in silicon valley and across the country are fighting to build companies that might transform education, transportation, other care, and many industries. many are doing important work. but, they are not superheroes. continuing aly tradition of americans who
pursue a dream. who solve problems. who tinker and experiment until something clicks. preserve this to tradition to ensure that people who grow up in the midwest and rural appellation and though shote neighborhoods have a at pursuing their dream, whatever that might be. why lincoln worked to connect policymakers and the technology community. as you all know, the rate of new firm creation is declining for the first time in recent history. the technology community and government leaders must work together to reverse this trend and promote more access. and more innovation. i believe in a free and open and mostas i am sure reasonable people would. but the process of getting to this outcome, and how rules are enforced, makes all of the
difference. the internet is not a monopoly. it has not experienced severe market failings. the internet is always evolving our watering, unlike services, transit or other public utilities. companies, in order to stay relevant in the marketplace, do work to provide consumers with faster speeds, new products, and new services. year,ruary, of this nearly 200,000 californians, where i live, were forced to evacuate because of a collapsing dam due to years of neglect. good ideahink it is a to give the same regulatory authority over power grids, bridges, and our waterways in the country to regulating the internet. i disagree. government control of the toernet invariably leads
more taxes, new rate regulations, new fees and micromanagement. if the goal is to keep the internet open and free, to promote more access and innovation, something we all agree with, it should not be managed or controlled by the government. i am honored this afternoon to introduce someone who perhaps more than any single person in the country today is shaping the technology policy. in january, he was nominated by the president to be the next chairman of the federal communications commission. he took the helm of this important federal agency, guided by a handful of principles. consumers benefit from market competition. not competitive or preemptive government regulation. holidaymakers should be --ptical of any technology policymakers should be skeptical
of any technology or any kind of special treatment. federal regulations, when they are needed should be created to reflect today's technology and today's dynamic marketplace. rather than decades-old regulations and industries. fcc is, like -- the bound by the laws created in congress. it cannot and should not be a super legislator. functions best, and this is critically important, functions best when policy is created through consensus and bipartisan by an. he is a first-generation american, a graduate of harvard university, and a university of chicago law school student, lee's welcome to the podium, --pleaseajit pai
welcome to the podium, chairman ajit pai. : thank you for the kind introduction. andk you to freedom works the small business and entrepreneurship council for hosting us. thank you to americans for tax liberty, theal national grange, hispanic leadership fund, and the lincoln network for supporting this event. it is a pleasure to be at the museum this afternoon. for almost five years, i have had the privilege of serving at the federal communications commission. i have had the chance to travel across our country and speak with americans from all walks of life. when it comes to high-speed internet access or broadband, i have found that there is far more that unites us than divides us. whether i am in red america, purple america, or blew them up -- blue america, people tell me
the same thing. they want fast, affordable, and reliable internet access. they say they want the benefits that come from competition. and they tell me that they want to access the contact in -- content and use the applications of their choice. the question that we at the fcc must answer is what policies will give the american people what they want? that question has been the subject of a fierce public debate and this afternoon, a new chapter of that debate will begin. before looking to the future, i would like to briefly review how we got to where we are today. is theply, the internet greatest free-market success in the history -- and this is due in large part to a landmark decision made by president bill clinton and republican congress in the telecommunications act of 1986. legislation, they
decided on a bipartisan basis, that it was the policy of the united states to preserve the vibrant and competitive free-market that currently by federal anded state regulation. for almost two decades, the fcc respected that policy. it adopted a light touch regulatory framework, one supported by the supreme court, and one that enabled the internet to grow and evolve beyond anyone's expectations. under this framework, a free and flournternet florist -- ished. it created some of the most successful online companies including google. private sector invested about $1.5 trillion under this framework to build the networks that gave americans a high speed access to the internet. and under this framework, american consumers benefited from unparalleled innovation.
two years ago, the federal government's approach suddenly changed. the fcc on a party line vote placed heavy-handed regulations on the internet slapping an old regulatory framework called title ii, originally designed in the 1930's for the mob bell telephone monopoly on thousands of internet providers, big and small. it put the federal government at the center of the internet. why? unfortunately, the answer has nothing to do with the facts. or the law. nothing about the internet was broken in 2015. nothing about the law had changed. and there was not a rash of internet service providers locking consumers from axing -- accessing the content or services of their choice. no, it was all about politics. 2000after a disappointing 14 midterm election and in order to energized a dispirited a's,
the white house released an extraordinary and unprecedented youtube video instructing the fcc to implement title ii regulations. it copper mice the agency and it worked. notwithstanding, the revisionist history, offered by some, the moving toward title ii regulation before the announcement. it was dragged kicking and screaming down that path. what was a problem that title ii was supposed to address? we were warned that without it, the internet would devolve into fast lanes and slow lanes. but strangely, the case for title ii was a fact free zone. as mark cuban said near the end of 2014, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. d.c. circuits decision has created an opportunity for the commission to introduce more rulemaking. they should not. things have worked well.
and as he put it, there is no better platform in the world to start up a new business than the internet in the united states. did these fast lanes and slow lanes even exist? no. the truth of the matter is that we decided to abandon successful policies solely because of hypothetical harms and prophecies of doom. it is almost as if the special interests pushing title ii were not trying to solve a real problem but were looking for an excuse to achieve their long-standing goal of forcing the internet under the control of the government. more on that later. now, two years ago, i warned that we were making a serious mistake. most important like him said that title ii regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. the economics are simple here. more -- the more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're going to get. when you talk about infrastructure investment, many people's eyes glaze over but it
isn't hard to explain in plain terms but the consequences are. reduced to investment needs fewer americans will have high-speed internet access. it means fewer americans will have jobs. and it means less competition for american consumers. fccwhat happened after the imposed title ii? infrastructure investment declined, sure enough. 12 internetrgest providers, expenditures $3.6ased by 5.6%, or billion between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the title to arrow. two era.- title importantly, the impact has not been limited to big isps. smaller, competitive providers have also been hit. for example, one of small arkansas isp called aristotle
told congress last year that before the title ii order was adopted, it was our intention to triple our customer base and cover a three county area. however, we have pulled back on those points, scary -- scaling back our deployment. aristotle was not alone. company sirs in rural -- another company serves rural illinois. a provider that serves 8000 customers around st. louis, missouri also cut back on investments resulting in slower speeds. and just this week, 22 small isps, it each of which has about 1000 broadband customers orders said thatler, told -- this had affected their ability to finance. it had slowed the development of
innovative new offerings that would benefit their customers. they said title ii hung like a black cloud over their businesses. america's smallest providers simply do not have the means or the margins to withstand the title ii regulatory onslaught. the member, these are the small companies who are critical to meeting consumers' hopes for a broadband competitive marketplace. none of this that i have described should come as a surprise. after all, we were warned in 1988, that if the agency suddenly subjected some or all of murder -- information providers, it would seriously chill the growth and development of advanced services. which radical republicans issued that warning? senators john kerry and ron wyden among others. and that is why we heard in 1999 that it is not good for america to just pick up this morass of
telephone regulations and dump it wholesale on the internet pipe. which right things that? president clinton's fcc chairman, bill canard. and in recent years, we were told that it was a -- free zone. which antigovernment extremist said that? economist at chief the time that the title ii order was adopted. according to one estimate, title ii has already cost our country $5.1 billion in broadband capital investment. , itn the multiplier effect means title ii has already cost us approximately 70,000 thousand jobs to 100,000 jobs. what about the who? who has been most harmed by title ii? that the areas that
provide the most marginal returns on the investments are the first to go. and in the case of broadband, that means low income, rural, and urban neighborhoods. as result, title ii has kept countless consumers from getting better internet access or access period and it is widening the digital divide in the country and accentuating the practice of digital redlining of fencing off lower income neighborhoods on the map think it is not worth the time or the money to deploy there. that is where we are today. where do we go from here? from a political standpoint, there is no question that the easiest path would be to do nothing. to leave title ii alone and to move on to other issues. but i did not pursue a career in public service to mark time or to fill titles. i did it in order to that or the lives of my fellow americans, including those that i grew up
with in rural kansas. when we are saddled with rules that will deny mehdi americans that will deny many americans high-speed internet access, nothing doing. going forward, we cannot stick with regulations from the great depression that were meant to micromanage ma bell. we need infrastructure investment. rules that expand internet access everywhere. rules that give americans more online choice. in short, digital opportunity. and we are going to deliver. earlier today, i shared with my fellow commissioners a proposal to reverse a mistake of title ii and to return to the light touch regulatory framework that served our nation so well during the clinton administration, the bush administration, and the first six years of the obama administration. the document we will be voting on at the public meeting on may 18 is called a notice of
rulemaking. will is adopted, the fcc seek public input on the proposal. this will be the beginning of the discussion and not the end. toe have called upon the fcc reverse title ii immediately through a declaratory ruling. i do not plead that is the right path forward. this decision should be made through an open and transparent process in which every american can share his or her own views. what are the basic elements of this notice of rulemaking? to theose to return classification service to a title i information service. touch regulation drawn directly from the clinton administration. as i mentioned earlier, this title i classification was expressly upheld by the supreme court in 2005 and it is more consistent with the facts and the law. second, we are proposing to eliminate the so-called internet
conduct standard. this 2015 role gives the commission a roving mandate to micromanage the business practices of internet companies. immediately following the vote, adopting the title ii order for instance, my predecessor was asked what the internet conduct standard meant. his answer was that we really do not know. we do not know what it means and we do not know where things go next. i have never heard a better definition of regulatory uncertainty. course, we did see where things were headed and it was not good for consumers. the commission used the conduct standard to launch a free ranging investigation of free data programs. under these programs, wireless companies offer their customers the ability to stream music and video exempt from data limits. popular among consumers, especially lower income americans. metno, the commission had the enemy and it was consumers getting something for free from the wireless providers.
following the presidential election, we terminated this investigation before the commission was able to take formal action. thise should not leave internet conduct standard on the books for a future commission to make mischief. third major feature of the notice of rulemaking, we are seeking comment on how we should approach the rules adopted in 2015. but, you will not just have to take my word about what was in the -- what is in the notice. i will be publicly releasing the entire text of the document tomorrow afternoon. and this also will be a marked change from what happened in 2015. two years ago, the commission head the title ii order from the american people until after it had been adopted. only a favored few were given access to the document and allowed to make major changes to it including at the last minute. the commission had to pass the order before you, the american public, was allowed to see it.
this time, under my leadership, things will be different. you may agree or disagree with the proposal, but you will know exactly what is in it. that i have outlined the process and substance surrounding the proposal, let us address the critical issue. what are the benefits? why is this proposal good for the american people? bring high-speed internet access to more americans without the overhang of heavy-handed regulations. companies will spend more money building next generation networks. and many americans, especially low income americans in rural and urban america, will get high-speed internet access for the first time. and more americans generally will benefit from better and faster broadband. second benefit. it will create jobs. more americans will go to work building these next-generation networks. these are good paying jobs, laying fiber, connecting
equipment to utility poles and digging trenches. and established businesses and startup entrepreneurs will build their business using those networks creating further jobs. third, it will boost competition. remember, title ii was designed for a monopoly. and a regulatory framework designed for a monopoly will tend to move the marketplace toward a monopoly. it did come as no surprise that we have seen greater consolidation during the title to era. heavy-handed regulations are especially tough on new businesses because they do not have the compliance officers and lawyers that the larger companies do. if we want to encourage smaller competitors to enter the broadband marketplace as well or to expand, we must end title ii. fourth, this proposal is the best path towards protecting america's online privacy. privacy is a topic that has received a lot of attention
recently. i understand that many disagree with the decision of congress to stop the commissions privacy rules from going into affect later this year. wherever you stand, one thing is indisputable. congress was maintaining the status quo that the commission put in place when it imposed title ii. that commission decision stripped the federal trade commission of its authority to regulate internet providers privacy. that is because the commission cannot regulate common carriers which the prior commission suddenly deemed broadband providers to be. this decision was a mistake. repealing title ii will simply restore the federal trade commission's authority to police broadband providers privacy practices. that means that the most expert and privacy -- the most expert privacy officer will be on the beach. we will simply return to the tried and true approach that
protected our digital privacy effectively before 2015. now, in any debate there are at least two sides and i would like to briefly address a few of the main arguments that you are going to hear from title ii supporters. throughout the discussion, you will hear from the other side that title ii is the only way to preserve a free and open internet. let me be clear. this is a lie. they will repeat it over and over again, but it is just not true. you do not have to be a regular -- a regulator or a lawyer to figure it out. you just need a memory. for decades, before 2015, we had free and open internet. indeed, the free and open internet developed under light touch regulation. we were not living in digital dystopia. the next argument you're going
to hear is that title ii is necessary to protect free speech. that is right. some will argue that government control is the key to your ability to express yourself on the internet. recognizecans should the absurdity for what it is. government regulation is not a friend of free speech but an enemy. after all, the first amendment does not give the government the power to regulate. it denies the government that power. anyone that thinks otherwise should remember the wise words of president gerald ford. a government big enough to give you everything that you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. it is no different when it comes to the internet. consider for example the leading special interest in favor of title ii -- a spectacularly named group called free press. it's cofounder and board member makes no effort to hide its true agenda. while he says we are not at a
point where we can eliminate the telephone and cable companies, he admits that the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists and to develop them of control. and who would assume control of the internet? the government. the overall goal was to remove the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. what would the government do once it is in control? free speech protect as we in the united states no acreage he has said that we need to do whatever we can to eliminate capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, perhaps even eliminate it. and this free press founder takes his inspiration, not from the u.s., but from an israeli. really. -- but from venezuela. really.
how is that working out for you? arguedanother cofounder during the obama administration "only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism." a notion repugnant to journalism. to be sure, it is tempting to submit these statements as isolated rants. but it is all too typical of the larger movement in our country today that is fundamentally hostile to freeze breach -- free speech and free expression. we see it when speakers are barred from college campuses, sometimes violently of late. we see it when university bureaucrats use phrases like -- empowering a culture of controversy prevention. and we see it when members of the federal election commission seek to restrict clinical speech and regulate online platforms
like the drudge report. where did the people who are driving is closing of the american mind stand on greater regulation of the internet? they do not just favor it, they strongly demand it. they make money off of it. and we are supposed to believe that their motive is to protect free speech online? please. the toys in front of it cannot be more clear. do we want the government to control the internet or do we want to embrace the light touch approach of established by president clinton and repeatedly reaffirmed by democratic and republican commissions alike? do we want to discourage the private sector from investing? or do we want to encourage more investment in online infrastructure that would enable more americans to have digital opportunity, many for the first time? do we want more americans employed or do we want to put more americans back to work?
do we want to have rules that encourage broadband monopolies or do we want rules that promote competition and more options for consumers? and we bought american consumers broadband privacy to be protected by an uncertain legal regime or do we want to and power the best cop on the beat, the commission, to protect americans privacy consistently and comprehensively? the answers to each of these questions is obvious to me. when the commission grant to the title to order two years ago, i expressed hope that we would look back at that vote as an aberration. from thery deviation bipartisan path that had served us so well. i voiced my confidence that the orders of the title to or already numbered. at the next meeting on may 18, we will take a significant step towards making that prediction a reality. later this year, i am confident that we will finish the job. make no mistake, this is a fight we intend to wage and a fight
that we are going to win. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> sunday, join washington journal at 9:00 a.m. eastern for the annual cram for the exam to help students prepare for the advanced placement u.s. government and politics exam. teachersol government will take your calls and review sample questions you might find on this year's exam. >> relax. there will be questions on the multiple that you do not know. do not blame your teachers. there will be questions that you miss. we all do. do your best. and, if you do not know the answer, make it a good guess.
do not leave it blank. think less and ink more. something, gok on back to what you do know. use those context clues. you have studied hard. you have worked hard. your teachers have prepared you well. use the context clues, take a deep breath and problem solve. >> the annual cram for the exam is always fun and informative. join us sunday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> check out our c-span website at c-span.org/classroom. it is full of free teaching resources for c-span classroom members. the improved layout gives teachers easy access to short to current event videos that highlight important events in washington, constitution clips that bring the constitution to planssocial study lesson
as well as "on this day in history" resources. person,filter by date, keyword, topic, and grade level. our bell ringers video clips are teacher favorites. sharede short videos with vocabulary and discussion make politics more accessible to your students. >> i love the bell ringers. i use them in make politics more accessible to your students. conjunction with an activity we are doing that day as a wrapup. >> the new website is fabulous. my students use it regularly and it is so easy, that they are working on clipping videos and making questions that they can design and turn into their own bell ringers. >> conjunction with an activity we are my favorite e deliberations page. it is ready to go classroom deliberation and classroom discussion on a variety of topics that are current and relevant today.
>> if you are in middle school or high school teacher, join thousands of teachers across the nation as a member of c-span -- c-span classroom. if you register now, you can request our free classroom sized american president timeline poster. a graphic display of the biographies of all 45 presidents. atd out more about it c-span.org/classroom. >> the weekly addresses from the president and the democrats talk about the first 100 days of the trump administration. first, we will hear from the president and then senator brian schatz. my fellowtrump: americans, i truly believe that the first 100 days of my administration has been truly just about the most successful s history.ntry' most important, we are bringing back jobs. ask t